or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Manton

The problem with this, which I don't expect you to acknowledge, is that this standard places the weapon of language in the hands of the professional agitators who seek to use language as a cudgel. You seem to think this is all about establishing fair and transparent standards of discourse that everyone knows and agrees with and adheres to and that respects everyone. Would that were so, I would be all for it. But it is not so. The history of this sort of activism is...
Huck Finn is great literature. Either you are capable of appreciating it, or you are not. Your posts suggest that you are not. You should not lightly denounce that which you can't understand. I suggested a book which I think you not only can understand, but that I think will accord with your already baked-in world view. You should thank me.
Here's another name: you're a fool. Read a whole book, a good book, cover to cover. Then we can discuss it. I don't recommend Huck Finn because, in spite of its greatness, you are predisposed to misunderstand it.How about To Kill A Mockingbird?
What a mouthful of confused dreck. Do you want to ban or don't you? Foo can't say tar baby but I can read twain? How generous! Shall we burn Uncle Remus?None of us can control how works of literature are interpreted by everyone. We can up the chances of the correct interpretation gaining currency through good education, but I appear to be the only one here (still active) who had one. And the rest of you who favor (soft, informal, so therefore not so bad!) bans are...
I repeat, all responses have ether been agreement / concessions, or mere assertions of "Wow, look at him saying that!" AKA, point and sputter. Which only makes my original point: the whole purpose here is to demark who is a good man and who is a bad man. Good men object to saying "tar baby". Bad men either say "tar baby" or know what "tar baby" actually originally meant. Only a bad man would know that. And only a very bad man would explain it in public. Good men,...
Why not? We can't say this, we can't cite that ... what exempts that book?I guess you are unaware of the ongoing campaign to scrub or ban or "trigger warn" all offending literature? Which means, pretty much all of it pre-Toni Morrison?
I don't feel particularly generous at the moment, so let me just say ... I've kicked your balls up into the roof of your mouth (metaphorically speaking) at least three times in this "debate" and this is all you got? "Effeminate and pusillanimous" hardly does it justice.
As noted, I object to the term being ruled out of bounds, and crammed down the memory hole, because some assert that it later took on "racist" meanings for some. That is the same insanity that is now driving the "trigger warning" movement and that undergirds so much censorship. I know, I know, none of you are liberals. :yawn: But still, do any of you have the sagacity or sack to stand against the kind of censorship being advocated here? And, hell YES, it IS...
Dude, you need a better translation of Nick. Get Mansfield.
New Posts  All Forums: